A Magnifying Study on Linguistic Landscape in Japan~Confronting Translation and English Text Discourse~

Abstract
In this paper, I explore the language discourse of English signs in the Tokyo
region, an area claimed to be undergoing the phenomenon of multilingualism.
Although admittedly the Linguistic Landscape of Japan has expanded with amore diverse distribution of scripts, further observation is desired in terms ofwhether the written discourse is comprehensible or not for foreign audiences.
My research observes the content of English writings visible in public areas
and addresses the issue of incoherency. Drawing on a qualitative andempirical study following a grounded data analyses, I affirm the messages
expressed in English inclining to be products derived from a Japanese
linguistic framework; the English is driven by Japanese linguistic logic andperception, and will not always translate to sound natural and coherent to an
audience whose first language is English. In other words, there is a tendency
for a Japanese linguistic mindset to be reflected in English texts. I hope thisstudy sheds light on the linguistic challenges of the English discourse inJapan, as well as reconsider what it truly means to embrace multilingualism.

1

I.

Literature Review
Here, I discuss the latest studies of Linguistic Landscape and its implications, alongwith the arguments concerning standard and non-standard English discourse.

With the world actively engaging in global activities in the spheres of business,
economics and politics, English has become the key device for communication between
people of different speeches (Yamada, 2010). While attempts such as the establishment of 6
official languages in the United Nations and other global organizations have been made toappreciate multilingual communication, English has been positioned as the mainstream
language used in our contemporary world for global dialogue. Consequently the spread ofEnglish in Japan has increasingly become evident, with it becoming the medium foreducational instruction as well as transactions in business (Yamagami & Tollefson, 2011).

Much has been said about the implications of English expanding in the world.
While some have pointed out the positive outcomes such as the increase of functional
speakers around the world (Yamada, 2010), in some cases English has been criticized as being
invasive and working to belittle the full affirmation of linguistic and ethnic diversity (Kubota
and McKay, 2009). While these findings mostly fit under the category of English colloquial
discourse, the implications English has had on written discourse in non-native communities2are also a worth noting. Landry and Bourhis introduced the concept of Linguistic Landscape(LL), defining the terminology as “The language of public road signs, advertising billboards,
street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings
combines to form the LL of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration” (Backhaus,2007). Yet, in relative comparison to the study on colloquial discourse, the study on LL has
had much to desire, given the fact that its definition lacked clarity and often resulted infocusing on deviated matters (Backhaus, 2007).

In an attempt to conduct a sufficient study following the definition by Landry and
Bourhis, Backhaus provided an insightful study in the field of LL, focusing on urban Tokyo.
His study from 2007 indicated how although the foreign LL in urban Tokyo was dominantwith English signs, it was also a diverse assortment of varying languages. The study put
forward several possible explanations for the “cause of variation” (Higgins, 2011) in foreign
language distribution, the first being the rising foreign population in Japan. Other reasons
implied the increase of foreign signs not only as a means for multinational communication,
but also for commercialism, promoting the image of “exoticism” to appear attractive(Backhaus, 2007).

Thus, Backhaus’s position is supported by those who see Japan evolve into a3

“linguistically and culturally diverse” society (Morita, 2004), where the use of foreign
languages (with English as the mainstream), has come to possess two roles in the realm of
writing. The first and traditional one is as a “conduit” (Nakane, 2009) for multilingual
communication, meaning a tool for translation. The second and newly established role is“persuasion” (Cook, 2009), which often times emits the image of “foreign” or “ethnic” so as
to appear attractive and new.

Diversifying and increasing foreign signs also imply Japan’s expanding capacity toaccept foreign linguistic cultures, which has traditionally been a society of “linguistic
uniformity and homogeneity” (Dong, 2009). Yet, much of the scholarly discussion
surrounding the global spread of English has come from a “macro, sociopolitical perspective”(Ryan, 2009), and Backhaus’ extensive research is inevitably driven by this factor. His study
focused on text distribution of the English and other foreign writings rather than content or
meaning of the text. The simple distribution of foreign letters in public space does notnecessarily imply that meaningful discourse takes place. Evaluation on the “linguistic
significance” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010) of foreign texts requires a “theoretical apparatus”(Kinginger, 2004) for further examination and discussion.

Meanwhile, extensive attempts to observe the content of the texts have yet to be4

made. This is perhaps because in most countries where English is spoken as a second
language, “it is extremely difficult to draw the lines between correct English, creative English,
and incorrect English” (Ikeshima, 2005).

For instance, Honna and Yano claim that countries

where English is taught as an international/foreign language is apt to localize it so as to best
fit their own needs (Yamada, 2010). Because there exists a certain agreement within theregion to speak in that new strand of English, “differentiating between genuine and bogus”(Augustinos & Every, 2007) English discourse is extremely difficult. Admittedly, English
spoken in countries where it has traditionally been the mother tongue is considered to be mostorthodox, but is not a conventional, unifying standard to distinguish proper and improper
English.

Some claim that Japan has provided its local version of foreign language as“Engrish”. Claimed to be “at best odd and incomprehensible at worst” (Ikeshima, 2005),“Engrish” is a relatively new term used to refer to “poor-quality attempts by professional
Japanese writers to create English words and phrases, and sometimes by other East Asian
nationalities as well” (http://www.allwords.com/word-Engrish.html, 2012). The etymology
comes from the mispronunciation of the word "English" common to speakers who havedifficulty distinguishing "l" and "r" sounds (http://www.allwords.com/word-Engrish.html,2012).
5

Increasingly diverse LL in urban Tokyo does not sufficiently prove that Japan ismultilingual even at the level of active language use, meaning both oral and written
communication. Language discourse under multilingual circumstances contains possibility of
being “idiosyncratic” (Spack, 1997), resulting in cross-cultural misunderstanding (Murata,
2007).
The purpose of my study is to observe the LL of urban Tokyo, observing in depth
the content of foreign signs in public spaces, and to identify whether these signs are results ofcoherent discourse.

II.

Data and Methods
I conducted empirical data analyses by gathering English writings which could beinterpreted as idiosyncrasies, where the texts contained awkward wordings or incorrect
grammatical structures. In total, I gathered 35 samples. Texts found were signs,
advertisements and packages of products visible in public spaces. The gathering took place in
my commuting route to university in Kanagawa Prefecture, which is approximately an hour
and a half ride by train via Shibuya Station, a major station in Tokyo handling 9 lines. I also
included English texts I found in shopping districts situated in walking proximity from the6university and my home.

I observed the lexical (word) choices and syntactic (grammatical) structures
bearing in mind the following three questions:(1)

What do the texts mean?

(2)

Is the message delivered in a coherent manner?

(3)

For whom is the message?

I defined “coherent” as conveying the intended message without grammaticalfaults or leaving room for misinterpretation. The third question addressed the possibility of
who the recipients may be, which included the consideration of whether the signs were for a
specific foreign audience, or simply anyone who sees them.

After the text analyses, I categorized the signs into three strands of tendencies so
as to seek commonalities in the gathered samples. I labeled each category with a title
indicating the featured characteristics as a means to “summarize raw data and convey key
themes and processes” (Thomas, 2006) in which these texts were made. The entire processesof my analyses are parallel to those of Backhaus (2007) and Murata (2007), both of whom
performed a grounded-data analysis observing English texts.
7

III.

AnalysesI found the English writings to have a tendency to follow specific word choices,

phrasings, and tone often used in Japanese. As a result, the texts sounded awkward andunnatural, often containing grammatical inaccuracies which were clear in terms of syntactic
and lexical features of the text. 60% of the samples were from multilingual signs, with theJapanese script at the top, sometimes accompanied by other languages such as Chinese or
Korean. This indicates how a significant amount of English texts found to be idiosyncratic
were intended for an English-speaking audience.

The awkwardness of these English texts was not simply derived from one cause suchas grammatical errors, but rather from an assortment of several “tendencies”. Not all examples
fit into just one of the three traits. Most samples had several tendencies, which I labeled asfollows.

The first is Trait A: Direct Translation. Signs and writings that fit under this groupwere mostly renderings of texts word-for-word, instead of conveying the meaning or gist.
Given the different syntactic structures of English and Japanese (i.e. Japanese verbs come at
the end of the sentences, subjects are typically omitted, and nouns do not have plural forms),
a word-for-word conversion tends to result in awkward phrasing or lack in grammatical8

accuracy.

The second is Trait B: Cultural Frame of Reference, which refers to the tendency of
directly converting an idea from a Japanese framework of thought into English, rather thanconverting the gist. The framework of thought covers not only the grammatical mindset, butalso concepts unique to the Japanese language. Although texts under this classification did
not suffer from as many grammatical inaccuracies as Trait A, the lexical choices were often
awkward or redundant, sometimes conveying an unintended message.

The third is Trait C: Disagreement with Established Expressions. Established
Expressions refer to commonly used wordings or phrases used in given situations, which cansometimes be colloquial, thus hard to approach by simple translation. The English texts
under this grouping may convey the intended message, but sound unnatural due toredundancy or unsuitable word choice. All samples under this category had overlapping
features with either Trait A or B, sometimes containing both.

9Figure1. Distribution of Traits
Traits# of examples

A

27

B

21

C

8

A&B

13

A&C

5

B&C

5

A&B&C

3

TOTAL

35

Figure2.Venn Diagram of Traits (Size of circle indicates number of examples)

Trait A

Trait B
Trait C

Figure1. confirms that Trait A was most likely to appear in English texts, closely
followed by Trait B. Trait C appeared less prevalent, but I chose to include this tendency as athird category, given that there was a co-relation with the first two traits. Figure2. is a Venn
Diagram indicating the overlapping relations between the three traits. While there were texts
which fit solely under Traits A or B, this was not the case with Trait C.

The following are part of my findings, each representing one or a combination of the10three traits.

Example1. A notice in a lavatory

Example1 is a sign found in a lavatory with a sensory flushing system. Flushing
the toilet is translated as benki senjyou, a noun in Japanese which means toilet bowl wash
word-for word. The phrase toilet-bowl washing sounds odd, because there is no corresponding
noun in English. Example 1 thus carries Trait A: Direct Translation.

Example2. A sign in a supermarket
We will wait for the next coming to a store.

Example2 contains the features of both traits A and B, which appears to be a directtranslation of a Japanese phrase mata no goraiten wo omachi shite orimasu (We will be
waiting for your next visit to this store). The object in the sentence sounds awkward,
containing no object (representation of Trait A).
11“Next coming”, is a direct translation of theJapanese noun raiten, which is not understandable in English. Finally, the use of the article in“a” is clearly misused.

In English, the message along the same lines could be phrased as “Please comeagain” or “We look forward to your next visit”.

The evident difference between thewordings in English and that of Japanese is how personal the tone of language is. In English it
is natural to use words such as you or your, where a specific person is being addressed. In
Japanese however, such words would be omitted, leaving the sentence to be relatively neutral.
As a result the word next coming was used, which has no reference to the person being
addressed. The awkwardness in Example2 occurred from not regarding the differences interms of tone between English and Japanese. I thus categorized this example under Trait B:
Cultural Frame of Reference.

12

Example3. A notice on a diaper changing seat in a lavatory

Example3 is well assisted by illustrations.

Yet, there are issues with the language

used. The first phrase “Caution, drop!” is simply an arrangement of two words, resulting in a
confusing and incomplete sentence. The subject (or object) is left out in the phrase, which
creates an awkward sentence. The cause of such word arrangement is attributable to writing
English with Japanese linguistic connotations. Subjects and objects are often omitted inJapanese sentences when they are either obvious or already mentioned. Example3 can be
deduced as English derived from a Japanese mindset, which fits in Trait B.

In addition, thephrase can be interpreted as a word-to word rendition of the Japanese word rakka-chu-i(caution for drop), which accounts for Trait A.

The second phrase “Never Leave” fits under Trait B. While it is grammaticallycorrect, the expression in itself is vague, leaving room for a broad interpretation. The intended
message is to not leave children unattended, but simply saying “Never Leave” would soundas though one is forbade from leaving the lavatory.
13

Example4. A sign on a restaurant
Specializing in good-eating soup.

Here is another example of Trait B, where the text was very likely to have been
written from a Japanese perception of “soup”. Example4 was on a sign advertising a specialty
soup of a chunky texture, full of vegetables and meat prepared in coarse bits. At first glance
this may not sound so awkward, apart from the phrase “good-eating”, which is arguably not aword. Yet, this sign is likely to be conveying an unintended message. Such was confirmed
when also looking at the corresponding Japanese message: taberu tame no oishii soopu (Adelicious soup for eating).

In Japanese, soup is not a food one eats, but rather drinks. This is due to the fluid
nature of soup, and thus is regarded analogous to a beverage. The intention of theadvertisement, however, was to promote a chunky, thick, filling soup which would require
one to chew and use a fork to eat like other solid dishes. It is probable that the restaurant
advertised their product with an understanding that soup is something one drinks, where in an
English mindset it is not. The play-on-words resulted in a different nuance.

14

Example5. A notice on the monitor of the Inokashira Line train car
Take care not to catch your hands in the door pockets!

Example5 contains the tendencies of all three traits. The message is often visible in
the train monitors above the doors or on stickers. Physically, it is impossible to “catch yourhands” unless they were severed off one’s arms. The text has a grammatical disagreement interms of active and passive voice. It is the passengers who get their hands caught, and the“doors” that “catch” your hands. In Japanese, the warning read; tobukuro ni te wo hasamanai
yowu gochyui kudasai. The wording hasamanai is the word hasamu (to bind something, to getcaught) in its active voice, negated by the auxiliary nai. In this case, getting one’s hand caught
in the doors would be described in the active voice in Japanese.

It is likely that whoever

wrote the text used the word “catch” in its active voice, translating the intended message in a
Japanese grammatical context. Example5 demonstrates both Traits A and B, a directtranslation of a concept derived from a Japanese mindset.

Example6. A notice on the tubes in the UK

Example6 is an “established expression” used in the UK. This shows that a15

translation approach at the word level does not produce a fluent text in the translated language,
making Example5 fit into Trait C. The accuracy or fluency of messages in English can depend
on whether one knows the commonly used phrase or not. The sign above refers to the gap
between the platform and door, but the same phrase could have been applied and translated as:
Mind the door.

IV.

Closing Remarks
My analyses show that English texts in the LL of Tokyo likely to be awkward orincomprehensible were phrasings coming from a Japanese linguistic mindset, or put
differently, driven by Japanese linguistic logic and perceptions. Whether the distinction
between the two linguistic mindsets could be made or not is something I find as a challenge
for English output.

As prior studies on LL in Japan have indicated, the distribution of foreign
language in public areas has admittedly increased. Yet such phenomenon does not denote theexistence of coherent and meaningful discourse of any language in the public sphere. It is
likely that idiosyncratic texts exist in other language signs as well. Whether idiosyncratic
foreign writings are a meaningful form of contemporary multilingual discourse is hitherto
controversial and desires further discussion.
16

V.

References

Allwords.com Oct.30, 2012.

http://www.allwords.com/word-Engrish.html

Augoustinos, M. & Every, D. (2007). The language of "race" and prejudice: A discourse ofdenial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 26, 123- 141.

Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic Landscapes A Comparative Study of Multilingualism inTokyo. Multilingual Matters Ltd, 136, 12-53
Cook, G. (2009). Sweet talking: Food, language, and democracy. Language Teaching, 43 (2),168-181.
Creese, A &Blackledge, A. (2010).Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy
for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, i, (2010)103-115.
Dong, J. (2009). 'Isn't it enough to be a Chinese speaker': Language ideology and migrant
identity construction in a public primary school in Beijing. Language &Communication, 29, 115-126.
Higgins, C. (2011). Gender identities in language education. In N. H. Hornberger. & S. L.
McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 370-397). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ikeshima, J. (2005). Some Perspectives on the Phenomenon of “Engrish”. The Keiai Journalof International Studies, No.15, 185-198
Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn't live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity
reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities
in multilingual contexts (pp. 219-242). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

17

Kubota, R. & McKay, S. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The roleof English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (4), 593-619.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 573-603.
Murata, K. (2007). Pro- and anti-whaling discourses in British and Japanese newspaper
reports in comparison: a cross-cultural perspective. Discourse Society, 18 (6),741-764.
Nakane, I. (2009). The Myth of an ‘Invisible Mediator’: An Australian Case Study ofEnglish-Japanese Police Interpreting. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary
International Studies, vol. 6, no. 1.
Ryan, S. (2009). Ambivalence and commitment, liberation and challenge: Investigating theattitudes of young Japanese people towards the learning of English. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 30 (5), 405-420.
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinalcase study. Written Communication, 14 (1), 3-62.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.
American Journal of Evaluation, 33 (3), 237-246.

Yamada, M. (2010). English as a multicultural language: Implications for a study of Japan'shigh schools' English language textbook. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development, 31 (5), 491-506.
Yamagami, M. & Tollefeson, J.W. (2011). Elite discourses of globalization in Japan: The
Role of English. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in the era of globalization(pp.15-37). Hampshire, UK. Palgrave Macmillan.
*Photos of texts were taken by Kazuma Kobatake*Illustration on page 8 from OFFICIALCONFUSION.COM. Retrieved on October
30th, from: http://officialconfusion.com/77/
18